if the game does not reflect how things work irl at even a basic level then it's lost a critically important connection to telling stories grounded in meaning.
it becomes an abstract game more akin to a board game than an RPG.
that's ok, plenty of people enjoy that type of thing.
i dont.
im not judging YOU for enjoying that, I'm upset that the game has radically changed so I no longer enjoy it.
I just went and read the designer's notes on combat and here's the money shot that shows 6e is working exactly as intended by the designers:
"If we’re shooting and dodging in the same rainstorm, no one really has an advantage, so why toss modifiers on both sides that just shift dice pools in the same way?"
We've shown in this thread how this fallacy is incorrect and will negatively impact the game.
We've seen Banshee and Fastjack (you guys are fine people, no personal attack here) have reiterated this fallacy despite having it categorically shown by multiple people that it's just that, a fallacy.
The TL:DR here is that the game designers for 6e made a critical mistake when attempting simplification that will negatively impact gameplay by divorcing outcomes so far from reality that stuff just stops making sense.
That's sad, because it did not have to be this way. The goals of simplification and streamlining could have been achieved while still retaining the relation to reality. Instead, i'm 100% guessing here, the designers got distracted with the shiny advantage/ disadvantage mechanic without properly understanding the impact of it. Then they restricted play-testing to folks who did not know enough to challenge them. The outcome is a product that destroys any attempts at black trenchcoat play style, enshrining play based on a mostly meaningless advantage system.
I'm not judging anyone if they like 6e, I'm judging 6e.